Ethics & The Office

"How do you tell somebody that you care about deeply, "I told you so." Gently with a rose? In a funny way, like it's a hilarious joke? Or do you just let it go, because saying it would just make things worse? ... Probably the funny way." -Michael Scott

I'll be honest, I've probably watched the entire series of The Office at least eight times. It's my go-to show. Even the season with Will Ferrel (you learn to power through). One of my favorite episodes is the one on business ethics. Holly comes in with a binder and reads corporate-mandated examples like not using social media at work, not stealing paperclips, or only using 45 minutes for your lunch break. Oscar chimes in, "This isn't ethics. It's a corporate anti-stealing tactic. Ethics is a real discussion of competing conceptions of the good." Andy asks if anyone would steal bread to feed their family as an example (Les Mis for the win!). Holly later uncovers that Meredith, in order to get discounts on paper supplies & Outback gift cards, sleeps with a paper supplier once a month. Corporate, in turn, calls Meredith's exchange a 'grey area' and leaves it be. The account of ethics exposed in this episode, foiled with Oscars succinct definition of ethics, might shed some light when we think of the word ethics.

Ethics, as a discipline, falls under three main divisions: (1) Meta-ethics, (2) Normative ethics, (3) Applied ethics. Meta-ethics asks what moral goodness is, basically falling into two camps where moral language offers real truth-propositions or just the expression of the individual subject. Normative ethics follows meta-ethics and asks how one ought to act. This is where you get into specific theories like Virtue Ethics, De-Ontology, & Consequentialism. Then there is applied ethics where a specific & often real-world scenario is examined through a normative ethical framework. The way a Virtue-Ethicist examines prostitution is radically different than how a Consequentialist examines an example of prostitution.

So, going back to The Office, it seems that Oscar really did offer the most helpful definition. Even Oscar's intuition that Holly was only speaking corporate anti-theft language proved correct! As soon as a highly un-ethical action came to light in Meredith's 'exchange', Corporate easily allowed the 'exchange' if it meant higher profits and no risk on their part. Thus, the corporate imperative to not steal paperclips or take a long lunch showed their practice of ethics centered around protecting & promoting the Corporation rather than their employees as human beings.

Now, I find it highly unlikely that either a corporation or individual people start at Meta-Ethics then determine its logical normative ethical theory and apply each situation through a carefully nuanced flow-chart system. That's not how people today do ethics. But we certainly use the word a lot. In the episode from The Office, no character had a problem calling an action 'ethical' or 'un-ethical'. You'll hear those words all the time on Twitter or CNN. But, the question remains, "Whose ethics?" A corporation's idea of ethics might be radically different than an ordinary person's conception. It is here that the discipline of ethics offers the clarity Oscar sought to bring to the conversation. "...competing conceptions of the good." I add that the concept of a good action flows necessarily from a conception of the good human being. It's totally acceptable to disagree on conceptions of the good. But here's what I learned from this episode of The Office: a corporation is not a human being. Corporations are made up of people and, in many senses, function like people. But, the conversation of ethics & ethical action concerns the actions of human beings. Corporations are right to build policies against stealing, not just because it benefits the corporation & it's employees, but it is better for human beings not to steal (all things being equal). I think this is an important distinction to make in the conversation of ethics, as it will keep 'ethical' & 'un-ethical' action falling into mere charges lobbed against people who act differently than you, I, or a corporation want them to act.